The plaintiff must establish diligent pursuit of a wrong remedy with due diligence and good faith to seek delay condonation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

IA.No.1933/2011

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking condonation of 14 days delay in re-filing the suit. Counsel for the defendant does not oppose this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in re-filing the suit is condoned.

IA.No.1931/2011

2. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this application are that on the basis of various advertisements released by the defendant in the month of March, 2006 with respect to sale of commercial property in Jasola, the plaintiff approached the defendant and booked a commercial space measuring 1073 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.12,000/-per sq. ft. in the Jasola Project. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.25,75,200/-on 18.03.2006 towards the first instalment, towards booking and as part sale price of the commercial space. The plaintiff thereafter was made to sign pre-typed blank documents. Subsequently the plaintiff learnt that the prices have been increased to Rs.16,000/-per sq. ft. The objection raised by the plaintiff was rejected, which led to the plaintiff approaching the MRTP Commission under Section 36A of the Act in the year 2006. The plaintiff subsequently on 16.03.2010 withdrew the said complaint as he wished to seek appropriate remedy.

3. The present suit was instituted on 22.12.2010. The plaintiff relies on Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that he was diligently pursuing a wrong remedy before the MRTP Commission, and thus the time spent before the Commissioner which is 449 days, be condoned.

4. Mr. Oberoi, counsel for the plaintiff contends that plaintiff had at the first instance approached the MRTP Commission keeping in mind the monopolistic attitude and unfair trade practice being adopted by the defendant with regard to the allotment and cancellation of the agreement and thereby forfeiting huge amount of the plaintiff. Upon legal advice received, complaint under Section 36A of the MRTP Act was filed in October, 2006. The matter was pending till March, 2010 due to one reason or the other. However, on account of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Saurabh Prakash Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 228, and on the basis of the objections taken by counsel for the defendant with regard to maintainability of the plaintiff’s complaint in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, on the advice of the new counsel the complaint was withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate forum for adjudication of the loss suffered and the grievances of the plaintiff.

5. Counsel for the plaintiff has strongly contended before this court that the provisions of Section 14 have to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the cause of justice rather than to abort the proceedings. Counsel further submits that it has been repeatedly held that the Court must take a liberal view in the matter to advance the cause of justice. In support of this argument, counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the case of J. Kumaradasan Nair & Anr. Vs. IRIC Sohan & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1333 and in the case of M/s.Shakti Tubes Ltd. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2009 SC 1200. In paragraph 14 of J. Kumaradasan Nair (Supra) the Supreme Court has extracted paragraph 22 of Consolidated Engineering Enterprise vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 167] which is reproduced below:

“22. The policy of the section is to afford protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation when he institutes a proceeding which by reason of some technical defect cannot be decided on merits and is dismissed. While considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element of mistake is inherent in the i